"They were just children!" This common phrase (and those like it) somewhat grinds my gears.

I'm not sure I think it's right to value children more than adults. When a murderer (god forbid) decides to enter an elementary school and gun down classrooms full of children, there should be no distinction in the level of cruelty/atrocity. I understand that children are seen as "defenseless" and are the country's posterity, etc. But it would hurt us no less for the same murderer to enter a mall and gun down stores full of mixed demographics - who are also defenseless. Children are innocent, but so are adults. And not only are adults innocent, but there are adults who try to be good people; there are adults committed altruistically to their friends, their family, and their community.Children, in fact, are wild cards. They currently possess no skills for the economy. They possess no moral compass (they can turn out to be detrimental to themselves and those around themselves). Children are therefore also dependent on their caregivers for the cultivation of their physical and mental wellbeing. Without adults, children are nothing.

I suppose with children, the justification is unlikely to be self-defense, whereas with adults it might be a possibility. In war, some people might argue that killing parts of the civilian population will weaken the war effort because it will damage food and weapon production etc., but children don't work and so that's not a justification for killing children. Basically, children aren't a threat to anyone, so it's not obvious what someone's motives could be for killing them. Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

At 2/12/2015 9:51:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:"They were just children!" This common phrase (and those like it) somewhat grinds my gears.

I'm not sure I think it's right to value children more than adults. When a murderer (god forbid) decides to enter an elementary school and gun down classrooms full of children, there should be no distinction in the level of cruelty/atrocity. I understand that children are seen as "defenseless" and are the country's posterity, etc. But it would hurt us no less for the same murderer to enter a mall and gun down stores full of mixed demographics - who are also defenseless. Children are innocent, but so are adults. And not only are adults innocent, but there are adults who try to be good people; there are adults committed altruistically to their friends, their family, and their community.Children, in fact, are wild cards. They currently possess no skills for the economy. They possess no moral compass (they can turn out to be detrimental to themselves and those around themselves). Children are therefore also dependent on their caregivers for the cultivation of their physical and mental well being. Without adults, children are nothing.

Discuss!

How many kids you got. This is not a rational argument and don't expect it to be, but there are more than one victim when a child is killed.

I lost a kid, a son who simply died. After ten years all of the labor and love of that ten years was shot. But consider if he had died of violence. He would be just as gone, but where is the thought that all adults are supposed to protect and care for all of our children. There is a reason people react so strongly against violence for children apart from the fact of their age. They are defenseless, just like the old, but the old are miserable already, and have lived their lives. None the less, if you kill an old person on their death bed the charge is the same as if you murdered a child. Children do not understand what they have in life and old people with less life than ever understand all too well what they are losing, But there is another distinction. Old people will fight for life when we do not know why; but to make children tractable we teach them to do as they are told, so they make perfect victims. If you told children to run like hell when they see a gun, even if it is in a circle they might survive; but everyone tells them to follow authority, and that some times means the man with the gun,

It is worse to kill children. You're looking at it in a utilitarian manner (i.e., adults can do more good, therefore they have more utility/worth), which is always going to produce garbage answers and as long as you keep that way of thinking you'll always be a step behind.

As people age they have a way of becoming used-up. There's several ways in which this happens. One is innocence, as Garb was alluding to. As we age our transgressions begin to add up. Older people often have more advanced ways of hurting others because they are in positions of power. Guilt doesn't go away as you age, it simply accumulates.

Another is pain. I'm still in my prime, but even at 33 my body is already not the same as it used to be. As we age, our body breaks down in a multitude of ways.

Experience is yet another. Using myself as an example again, I may be single but even when I do find my future wife it isn't going to be as magical as it would be for a 20 year-old. I've been in love several times, at this point in my life a relationship is more like a business partnership. My point is that older people have had all the great experiences already, there's not much left to look forward to.

Perhaps there's more, but these three immediately come to mind. As we age, these three factors give our lives less value. And why shouldn't they? If we didn't feel used-up at the end, there would be little reason to accept death. These things bring us resolution, help us to accept the inevitable with dignity as opposed to fright. If an 80 year-old and a 20 year-old both get a terminal illness, which do you feel bad for? Which one experiences more terror?

At 2/13/2015 12:46:10 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:It is worse to kill children. You're looking at it in a utilitarian manner (i.e., adults can do more good, therefore they have more utility/worth), which is always going to produce garbage answers and as long as you keep that way of thinking you'll always be a step behind.

As people age they have a way of becoming used-up. There's several ways in which this happens. One is innocence, as Garb was alluding to. As we age our transgressions begin to add up. Older people often have more advanced ways of hurting others because they are in positions of power. Guilt doesn't go away as you age, it simply accumulates.

Another is pain. I'm still in my prime, but even at 33 my body is already not the same as it used to be. As we age, our body breaks down in a multitude of ways.

Experience is yet another. Using myself as an example again, I may be single but even when I do find my future wife it isn't going to be as magical as it would be for a 20 year-old. I've been in love several times, at this point in my life a relationship is more like a business partnership. My point is that older people have had all the great experiences already, there's not much left to look forward to.

Perhaps there's more, but these three immediately come to mind. As we age, these three factors give our lives less value. And why shouldn't they? If we didn't feel used-up at the end, there would be little reason to accept death. These things bring us resolution, help us to accept the inevitable with dignity as opposed to fright. If an 80 year-old and a 20 year-old both get a terminal illness, which do you feel bad for? Which one experiences more terror?

All humans have equal right life. A "transgression" of the kind implied in day-to-day life has no effect on one's right to life. This is especially true when transgressions cannot be objectively identified (was it a transgression to victim 1? Victim 2? Did victim 3 see such a transgression as positively affecting him?) or when transgressions occur inadvertently. I think the latter point is necessary to delineate because we ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

Can you elaborate on the pain argument? Not sure of its significance. If anything, as we grow older, we hold stronger emotions. Pain becomes ever clearer. Pain is harder to let go of. The pain of fear (of death) is excruciating to those who begin to conceptualize it. Only adults experience this. An adult contemplating death (I have contemplated its significance, for example, for over 2 years now and it haunts me every now and then) will go through unimaginable torture. Think of the ISIS hostage captures and the subsequent beheadings. Imagine what the hostages on their knees were thinking minutes before their execution. Think even to the moment they were captured. A child would barely experience the fear, the pain.

Experience is relative so I believe that's a moot point; experience can work both ways. Generally speaking, yes, I'd feel worse for the 20-year-old if he had a terminal illness. However, I feel like you can only feel as bad for the individual as the individual him/her self does.

I was gonna add something else but during my furious typing I forgot the point I wanted to make lol.

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

How exactly do you determine the degree of responsibility one holds for the position of another man? Like, honestly. In fact, is it really ever the case that an innocent person would be responsible for the loony's position? Society at large might be the culprit, but certainly no individual(s).

All humans have equal right life. A "transgression" of the kind implied in day-to-day life has no effect on one's right to life. This is especially true when transgressions cannot be objectively identified (was it a transgression to victim 1? Victim 2? Did victim 3 see such a transgression as positively affecting him?) or when transgressions occur inadvertently. I think the latter point is necessary to delineate because we ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

I'm not choosing to kill one over another. I'm never going to make a choice like that, it's not mine to make. But in a general sense, I'd say it's worse to kill a child than it is to kill an adult. We all feel that way emotionally, and I think that emotional impetus is based on some logical grounds. I don't know how this got to be a discussion about rights...

Can you elaborate on the pain argument?

When I sneeze, now that I'm older, I have to make sure my back is straight or else I'll pull a muscle. When I run, I have to make sure my form is perfect so as to not hurt my knees and ankles. When I drink, I am hung over longer. When I miss sleep, I am less able to function. When I lift weights, I have to look out for tendonitis in my elbows. My entire body is slowly beginning to weaken, and as one's body weakens one experiences more pain. As I age, all these problems will continue to get worse, and I'll regularly discover new ones as new organs and such start to fail on me. I just had my first kidney stone a couple of years ago, I may have to look out for that as time goes on and I will have to be more careful with my diet. While I watch all my bodily systems fail on me, I will welcome death more and more to relieve me from the pain.

Experience is relative so I believe that's a moot point; experience can work both ways. Generally speaking, yes, I'd feel worse for the 20-year-old if he had a terminal illness. However, I feel like you can only feel as bad for the individual as the individual him/her self does.

All humans have equal right life. A "transgression" of the kind implied in day-to-day life has no effect on one's right to life. This is especially true when transgressions cannot be objectively identified (was it a transgression to victim 1? Victim 2? Did victim 3 see such a transgression as positively affecting him?) or when transgressions occur inadvertently. I think the latter point is necessary to delineate because we ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

I'm not choosing to kill one over another. I'm never going to make a choice like that, it's not mine to make. But in a general sense, I'd say it's worse to kill a child than it is to kill an adult. We all feel that way emotionally, and I think that emotional impetus is based on some logical grounds. I don't know how this got to be a discussion about rights...

Well what I'm suggesting is that if one of two persons had to die with one of them being an adult and the other being a child, a coin should be flipped, pretty much. (Unless the adult cedes his/her life). If the adult does not want to cede his/her life, that's his choice and he should not be condemned for it. This is what I mean by the right to life.

Can you elaborate on the pain argument?

When I sneeze, now that I'm older, I have to make sure my back is straight or else I'll pull a muscle. When I run, I have to make sure my form is perfect so as to not hurt my knees and ankles. When I drink, I am hung over longer. When I miss sleep, I am less able to function. When I lift weights, I have to look out for tendonitis in my elbows. My entire body is slowly beginning to weaken, and as one's body weakens one experiences more pain. As I age, all these problems will continue to get worse, and I'll regularly discover new ones as new organs and such start to fail on me. I just had my first kidney stone a couple of years ago, I may have to look out for that as time goes on and I will have to be more careful with my diet. While I watch all my bodily systems fail on me, I will welcome death more and more to relieve me from the pain.

That's you, I guess. Experience is relative.

Experience is relative so I believe that's a moot point; experience can work both ways. Generally speaking, yes, I'd feel worse for the 20-year-old if he had a terminal illness. However, I feel like you can only feel as bad for the individual as the individual him/her self does.

I don't think you got my point...

I think I got your point.:"My point is that older people have had all the great experiences already, there's not much left to look forward to."

That's relative. Not only are the individual experiences different and vary (what experiences you get, when you get them, etc), but the utility gained from any experience is dependent on the person alone. And this is especially important to point out because it isn't simply having the experience, but it's what you gain from the experiences that makes life worth living. And again, this differs from person to person.

All humans have equal right life. A "transgression" of the kind implied in day-to-day life has no effect on one's right to life. This is especially true when transgressions cannot be objectively identified (was it a transgression to victim 1? Victim 2? Did victim 3 see such a transgression as positively affecting him?) or when transgressions occur inadvertently. I think the latter point is necessary to delineate because we ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

I'm not choosing to kill one over another. I'm never going to make a choice like that, it's not mine to make. But in a general sense, I'd say it's worse to kill a child than it is to kill an adult. We all feel that way emotionally, and I think that emotional impetus is based on some logical grounds. I don't know how this got to be a discussion about rights...

Well what I'm suggesting is that if one of two persons had to die with one of them being an adult and the other being a child, a coin should be flipped, pretty much. (Unless the adult cedes his/her life). If the adult does not want to cede his/her life, that's his choice and he should not be condemned for it. This is what I mean by the right to life.

I wouldn't argue with that I suppose, but at the same time I don't see that as a realistic scenario. Ever. Furthermore, that wasn't the spirit of the discussion, OP simply wanted explanation as to why we naturally feel more hurt when children are murdered as opposed to adults.

Can you elaborate on the pain argument?

When I sneeze, now that I'm older, I have to make sure my back is straight or else I'll pull a muscle. When I run, I have to make sure my form is perfect so as to not hurt my knees and ankles. When I drink, I am hung over longer. When I miss sleep, I am less able to function. When I lift weights, I have to look out for tendonitis in my elbows. My entire body is slowly beginning to weaken, and as one's body weakens one experiences more pain. As I age, all these problems will continue to get worse, and I'll regularly discover new ones as new organs and such start to fail on me. I just had my first kidney stone a couple of years ago, I may have to look out for that as time goes on and I will have to be more careful with my diet. While I watch all my bodily systems fail on me, I will welcome death more and more to relieve me from the pain.

That's you, I guess. Experience is relative.

That's absolutely false. Everybody's body fails with age. There is no exception. And when one is experiencing more and more pain, it's hard to accept an argument that they won't welcome death more under those conditions.

Experience is relative so I believe that's a moot point; experience can work both ways. Generally speaking, yes, I'd feel worse for the 20-year-old if he had a terminal illness. However, I feel like you can only feel as bad for the individual as the individual him/her self does.

I don't think you got my point...

I think I got your point.:"My point is that older people have had all the great experiences already, there's not much left to look forward to."

That's relative. Not only are the individual experiences different and vary (what experiences you get, when you get them, etc), but the utility gained from any experience is dependent on the person alone. And this is especially important to point out because it isn't simply having the experience, but it's what you gain from the experiences that makes life worth living. And again, this differs from person to person.

The relativity is minor. You can only fall in love for the first time once, you can only become an adult once... the bird which falls out of the nest and flaps its wings for the first time isn't going to do that again.

All humans have equal right life. A "transgression" of the kind implied in day-to-day life has no effect on one's right to life. This is especially true when transgressions cannot be objectively identified (was it a transgression to victim 1? Victim 2? Did victim 3 see such a transgression as positively affecting him?) or when transgressions occur inadvertently. I think the latter point is necessary to delineate because we ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

I'm not choosing to kill one over another. I'm never going to make a choice like that, it's not mine to make. But in a general sense, I'd say it's worse to kill a child than it is to kill an adult. We all feel that way emotionally, and I think that emotional impetus is based on some logical grounds. I don't know how this got to be a discussion about rights...

Well what I'm suggesting is that if one of two persons had to die with one of them being an adult and the other being a child, a coin should be flipped, pretty much. (Unless the adult cedes his/her life). If the adult does not want to cede his/her life, that's his choice and he should not be condemned for it. This is what I mean by the right to life.

I wouldn't argue with that I suppose, but at the same time I don't see that as a realistic scenario. Ever. Furthermore, that wasn't the spirit of the discussion, OP simply wanted explanation as to why we naturally feel more hurt when children are murdered as opposed to adults.

well if you agree with that premise - that you would flip the coin - then naturally you wouldn't feel more hurt if children were gunned down rather than a random assortment of individuals. If you did feel more hurt, then you would rather have the adult killed than the child in order to lessen your pain.

Can you elaborate on the pain argument?

When I sneeze, now that I'm older, I have to make sure my back is straight or else I'll pull a muscle. When I run, I have to make sure my form is perfect so as to not hurt my knees and ankles. When I drink, I am hung over longer. When I miss sleep, I am less able to function. When I lift weights, I have to look out for tendonitis in my elbows. My entire body is slowly beginning to weaken, and as one's body weakens one experiences more pain. As I age, all these problems will continue to get worse, and I'll regularly discover new ones as new organs and such start to fail on me. I just had my first kidney stone a couple of years ago, I may have to look out for that as time goes on and I will have to be more careful with my diet. While I watch all my bodily systems fail on me, I will welcome death more and more to relieve me from the pain.

That's you, I guess. Experience is relative.

That's absolutely false. Everybody's body fails with age. There is no exception. And when one is experiencing more and more pain, it's hard to accept an argument that they won't welcome death more under those conditions.

I didn't mean to say no to the notion of the eventuality of failing bodies. I mean to say no to the idea that failing bodies leads to an inclining welcome for death. Who actually thinks like that? Also, that's a slap in the face to the millions of disabled people.

Experience is relative so I believe that's a moot point; experience can work both ways. Generally speaking, yes, I'd feel worse for the 20-year-old if he had a terminal illness. However, I feel like you can only feel as bad for the individual as the individual him/her self does.

I don't think you got my point...

I think I got your point.:"My point is that older people have had all the great experiences already, there's not much left to look forward to."

That's relative. Not only are the individual experiences different and vary (what experiences you get, when you get them, etc), but the utility gained from any experience is dependent on the person alone. And this is especially important to point out because it isn't simply having the experience, but it's what you gain from the experiences that makes life worth living. And again, this differs from person to person.

The relativity is minor. You can only fall in love for the first time once, you can only become an adult once... the bird which falls out of the nest and flaps its wings for the first time isn't going to do that again.

Your conception of experience seems narrow. There are people who dedicate their whole lives endeavoring a single experience. And every day that same experience may bring them the same level utility. There are also those who say the experience becomes richer over time. A very good example of this is the practice of martial arts. I mean really, there are too many examples to count.

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:I suppose with children, the justification is unlikely to be self-defense, whereas with adults it might be a possibility. In war, some people might argue that killing parts of the civilian population will weaken the war effort because it will damage food and weapon production etc., but children don't work and so that's not a justification for killing children. Basically, children aren't a threat to anyone, so it's not obvious what someone's motives could be for killing them. Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

In war, the justification for killing children is to kill the ideology. Take the current situation with ISIS and all who support their effort. That would be millions. Suppose you kill every last person that actually carries out terrorist attacks. All you have done is chopped the top of the weed off and spread its seeds. There are only two ways to end ISIS and the millions who support their effort. Kill them all, that includes their children as they will just grow up to take the place of the ones you just killed. Or you kill the ideology using propaganda. By this I mean you must make ISIS support its actions and show the world how it's actions are justified in the Koran. You of course will never get them to do the later, so history shows there is only one option. Kill all the people who subscribe to the ideology and support it. That includes all the children raised under the ideology. Radical Islam is an ideology, not a religion. There is no difference between Hitler and ISIS. Hitler was defeated by killing his supporters not his soldiers. ISIS will be defeated by killing it's supporters not it's soldiers. So in other words ISIS will never be defeated and Islam will take over the world.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

At 2/12/2015 9:51:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:"They were just children!" This common phrase (and those like it) somewhat grinds my gears.

I'm not sure I think it's right to value children more than adults. When a murderer (god forbid) decides to enter an elementary school and gun down classrooms full of children, there should be no distinction in the level of cruelty/atrocity. I understand that children are seen as "defenseless" and are the country's posterity, etc. But it would hurt us no less for the same murderer to enter a mall and gun down stores full of mixed demographics - who are also defenseless. Children are innocent, but so are adults. And not only are adults innocent, but there are adults who try to be good people; there are adults committed altruistically to their friends, their family, and their community.Children, in fact, are wild cards. They currently possess no skills for the economy. They possess no moral compass (they can turn out to be detrimental to themselves and those around themselves). Children are therefore also dependent on their caregivers for the cultivation of their physical and mental wellbeing. Without adults, children are nothing.

Discuss!

It's pretty simple really. Children in a school are way more defenseless than adults in a mall. If there's a shooter in a schoolroom, there is only one way in and the children are sitting ducks at their desks. None of them have the wisdom or strength necessary to escape or attempt to defend themselves by tackling the shooter.

However, if there's a shooter in a crowded mall, there are many escape routes available. Furthermore, many of those adults will have the strength necessary to rush the shooter and tackle him or wrestle away the gun, especially if they act together. Or the adults could run in different directions, forcing the shooter to choose his victims and let some get away.

Basically, small children are completely and utterly defenseless, and they cannot even realistically escape. Adults do generally have the ability to realistically run away, hide, or fight back in numbers and expect to survive.

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

How exactly do you determine the degree of responsibility one holds for the position of another man? Like, honestly. In fact, is it really ever the case that an innocent person would be responsible for the loony's position? Society at large might be the culprit, but certainly no individual(s).

Hey what? You know that society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals, right? I suppose you could argue that children make up society as much as adults do, but I think that's like saying that children consent to sex. I don't agree with it because I think that children are at a developmental stage which prioritizes learning above everything else, and they are just mimicking, playing and absorbing information in an uncritical fashion and they can't be held responsible for the structure of society.

I'm not suggesting that it's reasonable or sane to kill a bunch of adults because you feel oppressed by society, but on the other hand, you can't damage society without damaging individuals because there IS nothing else.

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:I suppose with children, the justification is unlikely to be self-defense, whereas with adults it might be a possibility. In war, some people might argue that killing parts of the civilian population will weaken the war effort because it will damage food and weapon production etc., but children don't work and so that's not a justification for killing children. Basically, children aren't a threat to anyone, so it's not obvious what someone's motives could be for killing them. Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

In war, the justification for killing children is to kill the ideology. Take the current situation with ISIS and all who support their effort. That would be millions. Suppose you kill every last person that actually carries out terrorist attacks. All you have done is chopped the top of the weed off and spread its seeds. There are only two ways to end ISIS and the millions who support their effort. Kill them all, that includes their children as they will just grow up to take the place of the ones you just killed. Or you kill the ideology using propaganda. By this I mean you must make ISIS support its actions and show the world how it's actions are justified in the Koran. You of course will never get them to do the later, so history shows there is only one option. Kill all the people who subscribe to the ideology and support it. That includes all the children raised under the ideology. Radical Islam is an ideology, not a religion. There is no difference between Hitler and ISIS. Hitler was defeated by killing his supporters not his soldiers. ISIS will be defeated by killing it's supporters not it's soldiers. So in other words ISIS will never be defeated and Islam will take over the world.

Oh well. Better Islam takes over the world than genocidal maniacs who like killing children, I suppose. I just hope it's the type of Islam that lets me wear colorful headscarves and not just those dowdy black ones.

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:I suppose with children, the justification is unlikely to be self-defense, whereas with adults it might be a possibility. In war, some people might argue that killing parts of the civilian population will weaken the war effort because it will damage food and weapon production etc., but children don't work and so that's not a justification for killing children. Basically, children aren't a threat to anyone, so it's not obvious what someone's motives could be for killing them. Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

In war, the justification for killing children is to kill the ideology. Take the current situation with ISIS and all who support their effort. That would be millions. Suppose you kill every last person that actually carries out terrorist attacks. All you have done is chopped the top of the weed off and spread its seeds. There are only two ways to end ISIS and the millions who support their effort. Kill them all, that includes their children as they will just grow up to take the place of the ones you just killed. Or you kill the ideology using propaganda. By this I mean you must make ISIS support its actions and show the world how it's actions are justified in the Koran. You of course will never get them to do the later, so history shows there is only one option. Kill all the people who subscribe to the ideology and support it. That includes all the children raised under the ideology. Radical Islam is an ideology, not a religion. There is no difference between Hitler and ISIS. Hitler was defeated by killing his supporters not his soldiers. ISIS will be defeated by killing it's supporters not it's soldiers. So in other words ISIS will never be defeated and Islam will take over the world.

Oh well. Better Islam takes over the world than genocidal maniacs who like killing children, I suppose. I just hope it's the type of Islam that lets me wear colorful headscarves and not just those dowdy black ones.

"genocidal maniacs who like killing children" Um it is islam that "LIKES killing children and raises them to like it. You will one day have to face reality just like the WW2 generation did. There was no joy in what had to be done for the sake of all humanity in WW2. And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

At 2/14/2015 7:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote:"genocidal maniacs who like killing children" Um it is islam that "LIKES killing children and raises them to like it. You will one day have to face reality just like the WW2 generation did. There was no joy in what had to be done for the sake of all humanity in WW2. And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

I don't think so. I think they'll go for military targets first. I think DDO would be low importance and right down the list.

At 2/14/2015 7:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote:"genocidal maniacs who like killing children" Um it is islam that "LIKES killing children and raises them to like it. You will one day have to face reality just like the WW2 generation did. There was no joy in what had to be done for the sake of all humanity in WW2. And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

I don't think so. I think they'll go for military targets first. I think DDO would be low importance and right down the list.

No but seriously. Preemptive genocide? It's just ludicrously evil.

Like I said you are just chopping off the top of the weed and spreading the seeds by going after the soldier. And if you hadn't noticed, it is no longer a "preemptive" situation.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

At 2/14/2015 7:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote:"genocidal maniacs who like killing children" Um it is islam that "LIKES killing children and raises them to like it. You will one day have to face reality just like the WW2 generation did. There was no joy in what had to be done for the sake of all humanity in WW2. And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

I don't think so. I think they'll go for military targets first. I think DDO would be low importance and right down the list. And no the people who would speak freely would be killed first. I was using DDO as an analogy.

No but seriously. Preemptive genocide? It's just ludicrously evil.

Like I said you are just chopping off the top of the weed and spreading the seeds by going after the soldier. And if you hadn't noticed, it is no longer a "preemptive" situation.

"I don't think so. I think they'll go for military targets first. I think DDO would be low importance and right down the list."

And no, the people who would speak freely would be killed first. I was using DDO as an analogy.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

At 2/14/2015 7:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote:"genocidal maniacs who like killing children" Um it is islam that "LIKES killing children and raises them to like it. You will one day have to face reality just like the WW2 generation did. There was no joy in what had to be done for the sake of all humanity in WW2. And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

I don't think so. I think they'll go for military targets first. I think DDO would be low importance and right down the list.

No but seriously. Preemptive genocide? It's just ludicrously evil.

Julius Caesar's war in Gaul was preemptive, unprovoked genocide. Yet most people consider that war to be one of his highest accomplishments.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 2/13/2015 12:01:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:Also, if a crazy person wants to get back at the world, it seems unfair to kill children who were not responsible for whatever situation he believes himself to be in.

How exactly do you determine the degree of responsibility one holds for the position of another man? Like, honestly. In fact, is it really ever the case that an innocent person would be responsible for the loony's position? Society at large might be the culprit, but certainly no individual(s).

Hey what? You know that society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals, right? I suppose you could argue that children make up society as much as adults do, but I think that's like saying that children consent to sex. I don't agree with it because I think that children are at a developmental stage which prioritizes learning above everything else, and they are just mimicking, playing and absorbing information in an uncritical fashion and they can't be held responsible for the structure of society.

I'm not suggesting that it's reasonable or sane to kill a bunch of adults because you feel oppressed by society, but on the other hand, you can't damage society without damaging individuals because there IS nothing else.

Well I'd say children do make a large part of society, albeit unintentionally. Their very lives influence the social, economic, and even political agendas of governments (which ultimately means individuals in democracy). It is in human nature to care for offspring. And individuals' attempts to protect their own and enhance the lives of their own leads to the probably inadvertent transgressions/oppression against those less fortunate. But people definitely are not out to intentionally screw people over. It's a result of the game. This is a reason why, either way, I think that arguing over the societal value of individuals is a moot point. It's not fair to burden adults like this. We ought not condemn/hold lower an individual for committing that which one did not wish (or even know!) to commit. It's unfair punishment. And choosing a child over an adult for that reason is unfair.

At 2/12/2015 9:51:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:"They were just children!" This common phrase (and those like it) somewhat grinds my gears.

I'm not sure I think it's right to value children more than adults. When a murderer (god forbid) decides to enter an elementary school and gun down classrooms full of children, there should be no distinction in the level of cruelty/atrocity. I understand that children are seen as "defenseless" and are the country's posterity, etc. But it would hurt us no less for the same murderer to enter a mall and gun down stores full of mixed demographics - who are also defenseless. Children are innocent, but so are adults. And not only are adults innocent, but there are adults who try to be good people; there are adults committed altruistically to their friends, their family, and their community.Children, in fact, are wild cards. They currently possess no skills for the economy. They possess no moral compass (they can turn out to be detrimental to themselves and those around themselves). Children are therefore also dependent on their caregivers for the cultivation of their physical and mental wellbeing. Without adults, children are nothing.

Discuss!

It's pretty simple really. Children in a school are way more defenseless than adults in a mall. If there's a shooter in a schoolroom, there is only one way in and the children are sitting ducks at their desks. None of them have the wisdom or strength necessary to escape or attempt to defend themselves by tackling the shooter.

However, if there's a shooter in a crowded mall, there are many escape routes available. Furthermore, many of those adults will have the strength necessary to rush the shooter and tackle him or wrestle away the gun, especially if they act together. Or the adults could run in different directions, forcing the shooter to choose his victims and let some get away.

Basically, small children are completely and utterly defenseless, and they cannot even realistically escape. Adults do generally have the ability to realistically run away, hide, or fight back in numbers and expect to survive.

So what about children in a classroom and 20-year-olds in a college classroom.D:

And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Is that an argument for or against Islam?

There is no difference between those who supported Hitler and those who support ISIS. ISIS is a part of Islam. Just as baptists and catholics are a part of christianity. Not all Germans supported Hitler not all muslims support ISIS. But both made it and are making it impossible to distinguish between themselves who don't support and those who do support through their inaction. Inaction is the same as support. As far as I can see the only muslims openly showing non support of ISIS are the ones living in Jordan. And that was only until a few days ago.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Is that an argument for or against Islam?

There is no difference between those who supported Hitler and those who support ISIS. ISIS is a part of Islam. Just as baptists and catholics are a part of christianity. Not all Germans supported Hitler not all muslims support ISIS. But both made it and are making it impossible to distinguish between themselves who don't support and those who do support through their inaction. Inaction is the same as support. As far as I can see the only muslims openly showing non support of ISIS are the ones living in Jordan. And that was only until a few days ago.

And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Is that an argument for or against Islam?

There is no difference between those who supported Hitler and those who support ISIS. ISIS is a part of Islam. Just as baptists and catholics are a part of christianity. Not all Germans supported Hitler not all muslims support ISIS. But both made it and are making it impossible to distinguish between themselves who don't support and those who do support through their inaction. Inaction is the same as support. As far as I can see the only muslims openly showing non support of ISIS are the ones living in Jordan. And that was only until a few days ago.

And what exactly constitutes support?

Allowing their presence

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Is that an argument for or against Islam?

There is no difference between those who supported Hitler and those who support ISIS. ISIS is a part of Islam. Just as baptists and catholics are a part of christianity. Not all Germans supported Hitler not all muslims support ISIS. But both made it and are making it impossible to distinguish between themselves who don't support and those who do support through their inaction. Inaction is the same as support. As far as I can see the only muslims openly showing non support of ISIS are the ones living in Jordan. And that was only until a few days ago.

And believe me the Islam that takes over the world will kill every member of this site first.

Is that an argument for or against Islam?

There is no difference between those who supported Hitler and those who support ISIS. ISIS is a part of Islam. Just as baptists and catholics are a part of christianity. Not all Germans supported Hitler not all muslims support ISIS. But both made it and are making it impossible to distinguish between themselves who don't support and those who do support through their inaction. Inaction is the same as support. As far as I can see the only muslims openly showing non support of ISIS are the ones living in Jordan. And that was only until a few days ago.

And what exactly constitutes support?

Allowing their presence

I messed up my question haha. I meant to say non support lol.

All the people in all the cities that have ISIS in them killing every last person that even espouses killing in the name of islam including their children over the age of 5 as they have been indoctrinated and have no hope of learning anything different as their parents will have been killed and blame it on the rest of the world rather than their evil parents. All one has to do is read history and know what has to be done to get rid of ISIS. Diplomacy is for two parties seeking a diplomatic solution. ISIS wants to cut your head off that is it. It also wants to raise as many children as it possibly can and teach them to want to cut your head off.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

Suppose a situation has arisen where the following facts are the case:

1. One child, and one adult have, through no fault of their own, become imperiled in a raging river.

2. At least one of them is going to drown.

3. You are the only person not so imperiled.

4. You have the skills only to save one of them.

5. The child is physically smaller than the adult.

6. Both are roughly in the same place in the river.

7. An attempt to save both would kill all three people in this situation.

---

In that situation, the child is the safer rescue because the child is smaller. Pulling an adult out of water is a very hard thing to do, especially in a raging river. (I've never pulled an adult out of a raging river, but sound thinking indicates that it would be harder to pull an adult out of a raging river than a child.)

If you go after the adult, you are making a greater risk to yourself. If you go after the kid, you are undertaking less of a risk, because the child is easier to save.

---

The real challenge, I think, is between my own dog, and an adult who is a stranger. Swap the kid for a dog that was mine. I would still save the dog, because the expectation is that the adult should be able to take care of themselves and use reasonable caution to avoid becoming so imperiled.

---

Swap the adult for a dog, and it's now a choice between the kid and the my dog. Regardless of my affection for the dog, I'd save the kid. Helpless people are more still more valuable than animals. Both the child and the dog are equally in need, so it's an issue of whether human life is more valuable than an animal's life.

---

Swap the child and the adult for two of my own hypothetical children. Now it's a choice between which kid. I would go for both even if I knew with substantial certainty that it would result in ending my life, because I would rather be dead than live with myself after having to chose between the life of one of my kids. No matter how great the risk, it would still be worth it.

The reason why we, as people, are more sympathetic to the death of children than the death of adults is because we expect adults to be responsible for themselves, but we only expect children to be responsible for themselves to the extent that they are able.

At 2/12/2015 9:51:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:"They were just children!" This common phrase (and those like it) somewhat grinds my gears.

I'm not sure I think it's right to value children more than adults. When a murderer (god forbid) decides to enter an elementary school and gun down classrooms full of children, there should be no distinction in the level of cruelty/atrocity. I understand that children are seen as "defenseless" and are the country's posterity, etc. But it would hurt us no less for the same murderer to enter a mall and gun down stores full of mixed demographics - who are also defenseless. Children are innocent, but so are adults. And not only are adults innocent, but there are adults who try to be good people; there are adults committed altruistically to their friends, their family, and their community.Children, in fact, are wild cards. They currently possess no skills for the economy. They possess no moral compass (they can turn out to be detrimental to themselves and those around themselves). Children are therefore also dependent on their caregivers for the cultivation of their physical and mental wellbeing. Without adults, children are nothing.